Review Reports - Young Adults’ Participation in Family Farming: Associated Factors and Implications for the Sustainability of Family Farms in Jambi, Indonesia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract

The abstract is well written; however, have the statistical results in parentheses next to the relevant significant variable(s).

Introduction

The introduction is lengthy, and it would be great if it were limited to 1 page by focusing more on the study background, significance, research problem, literature gap, study novelty, study aim and objectives, and study contribution. Additionally, there’s a lot of repeated information in this section, and the citations supporting the study's significance and the identified literature gap are lacking (Refer to Lines 60-62, 97-98, and 168-173).

Materials and methods

The materials and methods used in the study are well articulated. However, why did the authors choose binary logistic regression rather than the multivariate probit model, which allows for more dependent variables to be compared with the independent variables? The multivariate probit regression model can help determine whether age, for example, influences participation in two or more dependent variables (in this study, crop production, farm maintenance, harvesting, post-harvest processing, marketing, farm administration, financial record-keeping or transactions, and the use of agricultural technologies). This type of analysis helps readers gain a broader understanding of the study results rather than collapsing everything into a single dependent variable.

Results

The results are well presented and interpreted.

Discussion

The discussion of results is good; however, the authors should refrain from restating the results in the discussion section. While the authors have supported their discussion with relevant citations, the study would benefit greatly if they could add more similar studies that have reported similar or contrasting results, along with the rationale for the similarities or differences. This section, “4.4. Conceptual Contribution to the Sustainability of Family Farming”, and its arguments should be merged with the main discussion of results, as some aspects of the prior section are repeated here.

Conclusions

The conclusion should not have any statistics or results in it (refer to line 657). Reduce the length of this section and only have a short conclusion with practical and achievable recommendations, policy implications, and directions/implications for future research.

General comment

The manuscript is good, and yet the length of the sections makes it difficult to follow, particularly the Introduction, Discussion, and Conclusion sections. Try shortening these sections and all the best.

Author Response

Abstract

The abstract is well written; however, have the statistical results in parentheses next to the relevant significant variable(s).

Response: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We have revised the Abstract by adding the relevant statistical results in parentheses next to each significant variable. To keep the Abstract concise while still reporting both the magnitude and statistical significance of the associations, we report the adjusted odds ratio (AOR) and p-value for each significant predictor. (Lines 20-28)

Introduction

Response: Thank you for this helpful comment. We have substantially condensed and reorganized the Introduction to focus more directly on the study background and significance, research problem, literature gaps, study objective, and contribution. Repetitive discussions of individual, household, and intergenerational factors were combined or removed, while the key conceptual distinctions were retained. We also strengthened the citation support for statements concerning the significance of declining youth participation and the identified literature gaps, particularly the distinction between interest, aspirations or intentions, and regular operational participation. As a result, the narrative portion of the Introduction is considerably shorter and more focused while retaining the context and conceptual basis needed to motivate the study. (Lines 53-55, 123-128, 137-145)

Materials and Methods

Response: Thank you for this methodological suggestion. A multivariate probit model would be appropriate if participation in the different farm activities were treated as separate dependent outcomes. In the present study, however, these activities were specified as alternative forms of a single outcome representing regular operational participation in the family farm. Binary logistic regression was therefore used to analyze regular participation versus non-participation or occasional assistance. We have clarified this rationale in the Statistical Analysis section and added the limitation that activity-specific or multidimensional measures could provide a more detailed understanding of young adults’ participation in family farming. (Lines 287-290, 223-227,662-668)

Results

The results are well presented and interpreted.

Response: Thank you for this positive assessment.

Discussion

Response: Thank you for this constructive comment. We have revised the Discussion to reduce repetition and place greater emphasis on interpretation. Statements that mainly restated the statistical results were condensed or reformulated, and additional studies reporting similar or contrasting findings were incorporated together with discussion of possible contextual explanations. We also removed “4.4. Conceptual Contribution to the Sustainability of Family Farming” as a separate subsection and integrated its non-repetitive conceptual arguments into the relevant parts of the Discussion. These changes reduce duplication while retaining the broader implications for intergenerational farm continuity and the sustainability of family farming. (Lines 421-422, 440-442, 450-452, 464-466, 473-474, 479-484, 490-493, 498-499, 504-506, 511-513, 519-523, 537-541, 543-544, 548-551, 555-556, 566-568, 570-573, 579-581, 588-592, 598-600, 603-605, 616-624)

Conclusions

Response: Thank you for this helpful comment. We have shortened and refocused the Conclusions section. Numerical results and detailed restatements of the regression findings were removed, while the conclusion now emphasizes the main interpretive message and practical implications. The policy implications were condensed to focus on linking training with productive access and responsibility, creating meaningful roles for more highly educated young adults, and supporting family-based planning for the transfer of managerial responsibility. The Limitations and Future Research section was also streamlined to provide focused directions for future work. (Lines 630-662, 661-705)

General comment

Response: Thank you for this encouraging assessment and helpful suggestion. We have revised the Introduction, Discussion, and Conclusion to reduce repetition and improve focus. The Introduction was reorganized around the study background, research gap, objective, and contribution; the Discussion was streamlined to emphasize interpretation rather than restatement of results; and the Conclusion and policy implications were condensed to focus on the principal findings and their practical implications.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research addresses an important and timely topic—generational renewal in smallholder agriculture—which is critical for the sustainability of family farming systems in developing economies. The study employs appropriate methodological approaches, including a cross-sectional survey design and binary logistic regression analysis, with a sample of 329 young adults from farming households across six villages. Overall, the manuscript makes a valuable contribution to understanding the factors associated with young adults' participation in family farming in Indonesia. However, some revisions are needed for completing the results presentation, clarifying the theoretical framework, and ensuring cautious interpretation of cross-sectional data.

[1] Develop a conceptual model or framework diagram that illustrates the hypothesized relationships between individual characteristics, household resources, family governance factors, and participation.

[2] The authors note that participation is a gradual process, yet the analysis treats it as a dichotomous outcome. This limitation should be acknowledged more prominently. The authors should also discuss whether ordinal or continuous measures of participation intensity might have captured additional variation and provided a more nuanced understanding of participation.

[3] Review the manuscript for language that implies causality and replace with more neutral phrasing (e.g., “is associated with,” “is positively related to”) throughout, except where explicitly discussing implications.

[4] Ensure that the final version includes complete appendix tables with clear information about response options, scale anchors, and reliability statistics (Cronbach’s alpha) for the composite indices.

[5] In the limitations section, acknowledge that the sample size precluded more detailed subgroup analyses that could have revealed important heterogeneity in the relationships observed.

[6] Add a note to Table 5 specifying the reference categories for each categorical variable. Present the Wald statistics or p-values in a more prominent format.

[7] In Line 22-24, clarify the definition of “millennial farmers.” Although the study uses an age range of 19–39 years, the term “millennial” generally refers to a specific generational cohort rather than simply an age group. Use “young adults” or “young farmers” consistently throughout the manuscript, as in the title, unless there is a specific theoretical or empirical justification for using “millennial farmers.”

[8] In Line 128-142, the discussion of intergenerational relationships and family support is repetitive. Condense this section slightly.

[9] In Line 88-91, the sentence “Without the active participation of younger generations and the gradual transfer...” appears incomplete. Review and complete this sentence.

[10] In Line 280-293, provide a brief justification for the selection of the variables included in the regression model and explain, where appropriate, why other potentially relevant variables were excluded.

[11] In Line 324, the authors mention “The assumptions of the logistic regression model were tested,” but only multicollinearity and linearity in the logit are discussed. Briefly mention the other assumptions (e.g., absence of influential outliers, adequate sample size relative to number of predictors).

[12] In Line 530-534, provide some information on how common these arrangements are in the study area. If the survey collected information on tenure type, indicate whether these data were available and, if so, consider incorporating them into the analysis or discussion.

[13] In Line 631-642, expand the contribution section to more explicitly connect to theories of intergenerational transmission, social reproduction, or family business succession.

[14] In Line 726-731, add a more specific recommendation about what environmental aspects could be investigated (e.g., adoption of sustainable practices, environmental knowledge among young farmers).

Author Response

Develop a conceptual model or framework diagram that illustrates the hypothesized relationships between individual characteristics, household resources, family governance factors, and participation.

Response: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We agree that a conceptual framework diagram can make the analytical structure of the study clearer. We have therefore added Figure 1 at the end of the Introduction to summarize the hypothesized relationships between individual characteristics, household conditions and resources, perception-, family-, and succession-related factors, and young adults’ regular participation in family farming. (Lines 146-150)

The authors note that participation is a gradual process, yet the analysis treats it as a dichotomous outcome. This limitation should be acknowledged more prominently. The authors should also discuss whether ordinal or continuous measures of participation intensity might have captured additional variation and provided a more nuanced understanding of participation.

Response: Thank you for this important observation. We agree that treating participation as a binary outcome necessarily simplifies what may be a gradual and heterogeneous process. The binary measure was appropriate for the present study because the analysis focused on whether young adults had a regular operational role in the family farm, but it does not capture variation in the intensity, breadth, or nature of that participation. We have therefore strengthened the Limitations and Future Research section to make this limitation more explicit. We now note that ordinal or continuous measures—such as participation frequency, time allocation, number of activities performed, or multidimensional participation indices—could capture additional variation and provide a more nuanced understanding of young adults’ participation in family farming. (Lines 665-671)

Review the manuscript for language that implies causality and replace with more neutral phrasing (e.g., “is associated with,” “is positively related to”) throughout, except where explicitly discussing implications.

Response: Thank you for this important comment. We reviewed the manuscript for wording that could imply causality and revised it to use associational language consistent with the cross-sectional design. The Abstract, Results, and Discussion now describe the observed relationships in non-causal terms, and the Limitations section explicitly states that the design does not permit causal interpretation or determination of directionality.(Lines 588-592, 675-679)

Ensure that the final version includes complete appendix tables with clear information about response options, scale anchors, and reliability statistics (Cronbach’s alpha) for the composite indices.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have revised Appendix Table A2 to provide more complete measurement information for all composite indices. The table now reports Cronbach’s alpha for each index, and the accompanying note specifies the full five-point Likert response scale and scale anchors, from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. The note also clarifies that all items were coded in the same direction and that each composite index was calculated as the unweighted mean of its constituent items. (Appendix Table A2; Lines 736-740)

In the limitations section, acknowledge that the sample size precluded more detailed subgroup analyses that could have revealed important heterogeneity in the relationships observed.

Response: Thank you for this important observation. We agree that the sample size limited the feasibility of more detailed subgroup analyses. We have added this limitation to the Limitations and Future Research section, noting that stratified analyses by sex, educational attainment, commodity, location, or other household characteristics could potentially reveal heterogeneity in the observed relationships, but that the resulting subgroup sizes would have been too small for reliable multivariable estimation. We therefore recommend that future studies with larger samples examine whether the factors associated with young adults’ participation differ across these groups. (Lines 694-699)

Add a note to Table 5 specifying the reference categories for each categorical variable. Present the Wald statistics or p-values in a more prominent format.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have revised Table 5 to make the reference categories for all categorical predictors explicit in the table note. The reference categories are female for sex, junior secondary school or below for educational attainment, never married for marital status, and no agricultural training during the previous three years for agricultural training. We have also made the p-values more prominent by presenting them in a clearly labeled p-value column. (Table 5; Lines 371-375)

In Line 22-24, clarify the definition of “millennial farmers.” Although the study uses an age range of 19–39 years, the term “millennial” generally refers to a specific generational cohort rather than simply an age group. Use “young adults” or “young farmers” consistently throughout the manuscript, as in the title, unless there is a specific theoretical or empirical justification for using “millennial farmers.”

Response: Thank you for this clarification. We agree that “millennial farmers” should not be used interchangeably with an age-defined group because the term generally refers to a generational cohort. In the manuscript, the term appeared only in reporting the official classification used by Statistics Indonesia in the 2023 Agricultural Census for farmers aged 19–39 years. We have revised this sentence to make clear that “millennial farmers” is the terminology used by Statistics Indonesia. Throughout the study itself, we use “young adults” consistently to refer to respondents aged 19–39 years. (Lines 67-70)

In Line 128-142, the discussion of intergenerational relationships and family support is repetitive. Condense this section slightly.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We agree that the discussion of intergenerational relationships and family support contained some overlapping points. We have therefore condensed this section by combining related explanations of succession influences and family support, while retaining the distinction between broader intergenerational arrangements and the specific role of family support in providing access to resources, managerial responsibilities, and decision-making opportunities. (Lines 100-110)

In Line 88-91, the sentence “Without the active participation of younger generations and the gradual transfer...” appears incomplete. Review and complete this sentence.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the sentence to improve its grammatical completeness and clarity. It now reads: “Without the active participation of younger generations and the gradual transfer of managerial responsibilities, the long-term management of family farms and agricultural assets may become increasingly difficult to sustain.” (Lines 75-77)

In Line 280-293, provide a brief justification for the selection of the variables included in the regression model and explain, where appropriate, why other potentially relevant variables were excluded.

Response: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We have added a brief justification for variable selection in the Methods. The variables were selected a priori based on the conceptual framework and previous empirical research and were organized into the three domains examined in the study: individual characteristics, household conditions and resources, and perception-, family-, and succession-related factors. We also clarify that the analysis focused on individual- and household-level factors measured consistently across respondents; broader institutional, market, and community-level influences, although potentially relevant, were outside the scope of the present regression model. (Lines 252-259)

In Line 324, the authors mention “The assumptions of the logistic regression model were tested,” but only multicollinearity and linearity in the logit are discussed. Briefly mention the other assumptions (e.g., absence of influential outliers, adequate sample size relative to number of predictors).

Response: Thank you for this observation. We agree that the original description of the logistic regression diagnostics was incomplete. We have expanded the Statistical Analysis section to indicate that potentially influential observations were assessed using standardized residuals, leverage values, Cook’s influence statistics, and DFBETAs, and that sample-size adequacy was considered relative to model complexity. The model included 15 estimated predictor parameters and 152 cases in the smaller outcome category. The Results section now also reports that the influence diagnostics did not indicate any observation exerting undue influence on the fitted model; the maximum Cook’s influence statistic was 0.584, and the DFBETAs for all predictor coefficients were small in magnitude. (Lines 303-307, 346-347, 364-366)

In Line 530-534, provide some information on how common these arrangements are in the study area. If the survey collected information on tenure type, indicate whether these data were available and, if so, consider incorporating them into the analysis or discussion.

Response: Thank you for this important observation. The survey recorded the total area of agricultural land owned and/or managed by the household, including land operated under other tenure arrangements, but it did not collect tenure type as a separate variable. We therefore cannot determine the prevalence of specific arrangements such as rental, sharecropping, joint management, or delegated management in the study sample, nor assess tenure type as a separate explanatory factor in the analysis. We have revised the Discussion to clarify this limitation and added a corresponding note in the Limitations and Future Research section. (Lines 527-535, 684-688)

In Line 631-642, expand the contribution section to more explicitly connect to theories of intergenerational transmission, social reproduction, or family business succession.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have expanded the conceptual discussion to connect the findings more explicitly with intergenerational transmission, social reproduction, intergenerational solidarity, and family business succession. The revised Discussion now distinguishes managerial responsibility from ownership transfer and emphasizes that intergenerational continuity involves not only assets and knowledge, but also roles, authority, responsibilities, and access to productive resources. (Lines 570-573, 593-595, 622-627)

In Line 726-731, add a more specific recommendation about what environmental aspects could be investigated (e.g., adoption of sustainable practices, environmental knowledge among young farmers).

Response: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We have expanded the recommendation in the Limitations and Future Research section to specify environmental dimensions that could be examined in future studies. In particular, we now suggest assessing young adults’ environmental knowledge and their adoption of sustainable farming practices, including soil and water conservation, more efficient use of chemical inputs, waste management, and climate-adaptive practices. These measures could be integrated with social and economic indicators to provide a more comprehensive assessment of how young adults’ participation relates to the broader sustainability of family farming. (Lines 700-708)

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The reviewed article addresses an interesting and timely issue, and the research approach used is scientifically valuable. To improve the article, I propose incorporating a few comments. 1. The title of the article is too complex. It should better highlight the determinants of youth participation in agricultural activities and farm management. 2. Do the authors believe that youth participation in agricultural activities and/or farm management, especially in the short term, equates to farm succession? 3. The article lacks information about the purpose of the research. The authors identified research gaps but did not precisely define the research objective. 4. The study group includes a large proportion of farms from the second region engaged in palm oil production. 130 respondents came from these farms. Therefore, the question arises whether this pattern distorts the results. 5. Regular participation by young people was defined as participation in at least one farm activity. However, this combines very different forms of involvement – from production work to administration and marketing. It is advisable to justify this approach in light of the results. 6. The study focuses primarily on the participation of young people and the intergenerational continuity of households, therefore the conclusions formulated are weakly linked to "sustainable development".

Author Response

The reviewed article addresses an interesting and timely issue, and the research approach used is scientifically valuable. To improve the article, I propose incorporating a few comments.

The title of the article is too complex. It should better highlight the determinants of youth participation in agricultural activities and farm management.

Response: Thank you for this helpful comment. We have revised the title to simplify its structure and place greater emphasis on the factors associated with young adults’ participation in family farming. The revised title is: “Young Adults’ Participation in Family Farming: Associated Factors and Implications for the Sustainability of Family Farms in Jambi, Indonesia.” This formulation highlights the study’s empirical focus on participation and its associated factors while retaining the broader sustainability relevance of the study. (Lines 2-4)

Do the authors believe that youth participation in agricultural activities and/or farm management, especially in the short term, equates to farm succession?

Response: Thank you for raising this point. We do not consider young adults’ participation in farm activities or management to be equivalent to farm succession. In this study, regular participation is treated as a current behavioral outcome, whereas succession is a broader intergenerational process that may involve the progressive transfer of managerial responsibility and, eventually, farm management or ownership. We have revised the Introduction, Discussion, and Conclusion to make this distinction explicit and to remove wording that could imply a linear progression from participation to succession. The revised manuscript now treats productive access, regular participation, decision-making, managerial responsibility, and formal succession as related but distinct dimensions of intergenerational farm continuity. (Lines 111 – 116, 593-595, 620-622, 633-635)

The article lacks information about the purpose of the research. The authors identified research gaps but did not precisely define the research objective.

Response: Thank you for this observation. We agree that the research objective should be stated more explicitly. Although the original Introduction identified the relevant research gaps, the objective was not formulated as clearly as it could have been. We have therefore revised the final paragraph of the Introduction to state the objective directly: to identify the individual characteristics, household resources, and family- and succession-related factors associated with young adults’ regular participation in family farming in Jambi Province, Indonesia. (Lines 137-139)

The study group includes a large proportion of farms from the second region engaged in palm oil production. 130 respondents came from these farms. Therefore, the question arises whether this pattern distorts the results.

Response: Thank you for raising this point. The 130 respondents from oil-palm farming households resulted from the proportional allocation of the sample across the selected villages. Given the size of this subgroup, we conducted an additional robustness check by re-estimating the model after excluding these respondents (n = 199). The direction of all estimated associations remained unchanged. Gender, educational attainment overall, agricultural training, household size, family support, involvement in farm decision-making, and family succession expectations and planning remained statistically significant. The associations with annual household income per capita and agricultural land managed by the household were no longer significant at the 5% level, while tertiary education remained significant but senior secondary education did not. Overall, the pattern of results remained broadly consistent with the full-sample model, indicating that the main findings were not driven solely by the oil-palm subgroup. We have added this robustness check to the Methods and Results sections and report the full estimates in Table A3 (Appendix). (Lines 316-318, 399-409, Appendix Table A3; 742-749)

Regular participation by young people was defined as participation in at least one farm activity. However, this combines very different forms of involvement – from production work to administration and marketing. It is advisable to justify this approach in light of the results.

Response: Thank you for this helpful observation. The participation measure was designed to identify whether young adults had a regular operational role in the family farm, rather than to distinguish participation in specific activity domains. The listed activities therefore represent alternative forms of operational participation within the family farm, including production, post-harvest, marketing, administrative, financial, and technology-related roles. This approach was intended to avoid restricting participation only to field-based production activities, since regular involvement in marketing, administration, or technology use may also constitute meaningful participation in family farming. We have clarified this rationale in the Methods. We also acknowledge that the binary measure does not capture differences in the type, breadth, or intensity of participation, and this limitation is explicitly discussed in the Limitations and Future Research section. (Lines 225-229, 661-668)

The study focuses primarily on the participation of young people and the intergenerational continuity of households, therefore the conclusions formulated are weakly linked to "sustainable development".

Response: Thank you for this important observation. We agree that the link between the study findings and sustainable development was not sufficiently explicit in the original conclusion. The study does not assess environmental sustainability directly; rather, its contribution relates primarily to the social and economic dimensions of agricultural sustainability, particularly the intergenerational continuity of family farming and the maintenance of human and managerial capacity within farm households. We have therefore revised the Conclusion to make this connection more explicit while avoiding claims beyond the scope of the data. (Lines 638-640)

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is improved, coherent, and would add valuable information to literature. I therefore endorse its publication.